Greenland has recently been in the news a lot as a result of talks about the US potentially acquiring the small island nation of just under 57,000 residents. Lost amidst this politically charged discussion is a disturbing, silent reality: Greenland is already being slowly destroyed from within by the phenomenon of “brain drain.”
Coined by the Royal Society in the mid-1950s to describe the migration of British medical graduates to North America, brain drain refers to the emigration of educated individuals and skilled workers from small, post-colonial nations, often in the Pacific, to more developed nations in search of better work opportunities and educational systems.
Brain drain began to occur in Greenland post-1953 after the country shed its colonial status and became an autonomous Danish territory. On average, over the last thirty years, about 2,700 people leave Greenland annually, many for the promise of a more “fast-paced” lifestyle and ”much more to choose from” in Denmark in terms of jobs, higher education, and entertainment.
Although Greenland receives some immigration, at this rate, with Greenland experiencing an average net citizen loss of 365 people per year, the country will lose almost 10,000 additional residents by 2050, close to a 20% net deficit in population. What makes this emigration especially problematic is that the vast majority leaving are young people, 16-18 years-old, who are pursuing higher education in Denmark or outside of Greenland, 56% of whom do not return. The loss of young people, who are at the beginning of their earning trajectories, and their ability to contribute to society and the economy in Greenland, is a keenly felt absence.
As an 18-year-old myself, planning to attend college next year, brain drain is an issue that hits close to home. I understand the appeal of leaving your homeland (California, in my case) to study, experience new cultures, and build valuable relationships with peers from around the world. Students my age in Greenland have the additional powerful motivation of leaving their country to find better jobs and personal opportunities, and the alluring potential to send money (remittances) back to their families in Greenland. It is hard to refute the pull of that possibility, and the deep responsibility young people in Greenland must feel.
There is a strong chance—likely, in my opinion—that if the US annexes Greenland and makes it a US territory, this issue will only worsen, exacerbating the impact of brain drain that is already steadily destroying Greenland. This economic reality is why I strongly believe in pushing back against the US’s potential annexation of Greenland and simultaneously supporting the country to create additional educational and economic opportunities to encourage its population to stay.
Over the past two years, I have researched the effects of occupation and colonization on small islands in the Pacific, such as Guam and American Samoa (Guam has been occupied by the US and Japan since 1898, and American Samoa has the highest rate of remittances as a share of GDP, at a whopping 34%). These nations are living examples, decades ahead of Greenland in this process, of what could happen should the US proceed with its plan.
American Samoa’s economy, as one example, is now heavily reliant on more developed countries like Australia and New Zealand to let in immigrants from American Samoa every year, as it is now dependent on the remittances these immigrants send back to American Samoa. Even today, Guam, a formerly self-sufficient country where over 27% of its land is still owned by the US, is forced to import over 90% of its food, as it has lost the infrastructure and labor pool it requires to be food-independent. If Greenland is annexed in a similar way, these effects, already kickstarted by Denmark’s colonization of the island three centuries ago, will likely be compounded and have a devastating impact on Greenland’s future.
To battle against the pernicious effects of brain drain, not just in Greenland, but in small island nations around the world susceptible to this type of reliance, I believe we need to take a stand against the annexation of territories like these and support these smaller countries in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency.
One model that has worked to push off foreign intrusions and develop self-sufficiency is for small nations to focus on international marketing and tourism. Considering that Greenland has very limited arable land (less than 1% of its land can be used for agriculture), this method could be very effective compared to expanding other industries such as agricultural exports.
In Greenland, marketing to encourage tourism could focus on its core industries of sheep-herding, grass-growing, and the production of potatoes and turnips—and its traditional values and beautiful verdant vistas. Such campaigns could serve to raise awareness and greatly expand the areas within the country that tourists visit.
In turn, these developments could increase the demand for exports from Greenland to the rest of the world. The country’s largest industry is fishing, which accounts for 90% of its exports, so creating successful marketing initiatives focused on Greenland’s offerings could increase revenue and create the need for more jobs, while also retaining Greenland’s financial and political independence. Diversifying the country’s economy beyond reliance on fishing is another pathway to self-sufficiency. These initiatives will require building up its marine infrastructure to increase shipping routes and its air infrastructure, including modernizing the Nuuk and Ilulissat airports, to support real and sustainable growth.
As a young person who is deeply connected to my own country, I can only imagine what these improvements would mean to the younger populations in Greenland. If changes like these were to cause them to see a real future within their country, that would be the greatest way to counteract brain drain that I can imagine. And the stronger and more economically independent Greenland becomes, the more it will be able to stave off potential unwanted intrusions from countries like the United States, and to preserve its heritage and traditions.